[488] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 6, 8.—“ad nostrum et dictæ sedis beneplacitum.”
The original appointments of Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin were similarly ad beneplacitum (Ibid. fol. 10), which may perhaps explain their assertion of independence of Torquemada.
[489] Ibid. fol. 3, 11, 13, 15, 20; Lib. IV, fol. 91, 118, 137; Lib. V, fol. 117, 136, 138, 151, 199, 200, 251, 264, 295.—Archivo de Alcalá, Hacienda, Leg. 1049.
[490] Instruciones de Sevilla (Arguello, Copilacion de las Instruciones, fol. 2, Madrid, 1630).
[491] Páramo, p. 156.
[492] Bulario de la Orden de Santiago, Lib. I de copias, fol. 8, 10.—Monteiro, Historia da Inquisiçaõ, II, 415.—Boletin, XV, 490.—Ripoll IV, 5, 6.
Somewhat similar was the question which arose, in 1507, on the retirement of Diego Deza and the appointment of Ximenes as inquisitor-general of Castile. His commission as usual contained the power of appointing and removing or punishing all subordinates, but those who derived their commissions from Deza seem to have claimed that they were not amenable to Ximenes and it required a special brief from Julius II, August 18, 1509, to establish his authority over them.—Bulario, Lib. III, fol. 68; Lib. I de copias, fol. 30.
[493] Llorente, Añales, I, 214.—Francisco de la Fuente, as we have seen was inquisitor of Ciudad-Real as early as 1483. Alonso de Fuentelsaz in 1487 was one of the inquisitors of Toledo and was then merely a doctor.—Arch. hist. nacional, Inq. de Toledo, Leg. 176, n. 673.
[494] Archivo de Simancas, Inquisicion, Libro 933.—“Inquisitores generales in omnibus regnis et dominiis serenissimorum regis et reginæ dominorum nostrorum subdelegati a reverendissimo patre nostro fratre Thoma de Torquemada ... inquisitore generali.”
Yet we have the commission of Martin of Messina, in 1494, issued directly by the pope.—Bulario, Lib. I de copias, fol. 3.